![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Future Of Democracy
There was a film last night about the bloggers who brought down Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. OK. I thought, no contest. People power. I know which side I'm cheering for.
But.
While Lieberman is a machine politician and a sell-out, the empty-eyed smoothiechops they had running against him had nothing going for him except that he was rich and not Joe Lieberman.
And then there were the bloggers themselves. You know what? My idea of a blogger is the sort of person I meet on LJ- independent, quirky, individual, committed to the art of writing, happy to be in a place where there's no editorial control and one can say what the hell one wants- no matter how silly, far-out, erudite, obscene, strange or uncommercial.
But these people were sweaty and had stary eyes. They didn't care about words.
And there was this brutish, young man- who wore his hat the wrong way round and never took it off, not even in church- who was organisinhg them, feeding them stories, telling them what to say.
A whipper-in of hounds.
So there were the bloggers, a whole posse of them, with their camcorders, following Lieberman around, hoping to catch him saying or doing something daft, smirking and smugging and egging one another on and it slowly dawned on me that I hated them. As someone said in inteview- maybe it was Christopher Hitchens- they'd become a mob.
A gang of peasants with torches and pitchforks.
And what they were blogging was mainly abuse. Not, clever, witty, analytical or anything like that. Stupid stuff.
Then one of them- a blogger of national celebrity who can count on getting a million hits a day- published a photoshopped image of Lieberman in black face. Why? Because the mind of a mob is constantly pushing the envelope of stupid.
And there was a surge of support for Lieberman.
In the end Lieberman lost the primary but went on to win the race as an independent. Something had changed and nothing had changed. We'd seen the future of democracy and it was just like the past-
Graceless and ugly.
But.
While Lieberman is a machine politician and a sell-out, the empty-eyed smoothiechops they had running against him had nothing going for him except that he was rich and not Joe Lieberman.
And then there were the bloggers themselves. You know what? My idea of a blogger is the sort of person I meet on LJ- independent, quirky, individual, committed to the art of writing, happy to be in a place where there's no editorial control and one can say what the hell one wants- no matter how silly, far-out, erudite, obscene, strange or uncommercial.
But these people were sweaty and had stary eyes. They didn't care about words.
And there was this brutish, young man- who wore his hat the wrong way round and never took it off, not even in church- who was organisinhg them, feeding them stories, telling them what to say.
A whipper-in of hounds.
So there were the bloggers, a whole posse of them, with their camcorders, following Lieberman around, hoping to catch him saying or doing something daft, smirking and smugging and egging one another on and it slowly dawned on me that I hated them. As someone said in inteview- maybe it was Christopher Hitchens- they'd become a mob.
A gang of peasants with torches and pitchforks.
And what they were blogging was mainly abuse. Not, clever, witty, analytical or anything like that. Stupid stuff.
Then one of them- a blogger of national celebrity who can count on getting a million hits a day- published a photoshopped image of Lieberman in black face. Why? Because the mind of a mob is constantly pushing the envelope of stupid.
And there was a surge of support for Lieberman.
In the end Lieberman lost the primary but went on to win the race as an independent. Something had changed and nothing had changed. We'd seen the future of democracy and it was just like the past-
Graceless and ugly.
Im sorry Tony but...
him a machine politician and a sellout?
if so and if you have reason on this knowledge
then it is fair...
if not then is it other than an example of
something just a tiny bit
...well your word 'graceless and ugly' to
speak in this way of a man you do not know
except that you disagree with him on some
matter of public policy?
all that I have heard of this man on a personal
level is of an honorable good man so I am
replying to this with a little surprise and
disappointment...
no subject
is anyone who does not agree to your
political views a sellout?
surely this does not do justice to
what I have felt of you through
your journal, and I think rightly felt.
so perhaps you have some personal
knowledge of this man?
no subject
...a double needed
opinions if so they are...:)
or ,I dont know, just the craziness of this
world and life through which we are speeding
where so many choices are hard or lunatic...
again sorry for my sort of 'moral high ground'
answer which is a sure way of being offensive
in and of itself...
recall fella I mentioned other day fr Peter
of Wyszinski U. Pol Sci observing that there is
no way to go through our days without hurting
and being hurt.
sad thing when you think of it.
uh make mine a double Jameson then if you would. :)
Re: ...a double needed
Politicians are people who put themselves in a position where the hurting they do is on an industrial scale.
It's dirty work, but someone has to do it.
no subject
But I'm just wondering who made the film?
no subject
umm rereading yours
have evaluated more that you were
saying
"yes Lieberman is not one of us etc
[machine politician and sellout]
but we do a disservice to democracy
by trying to bring him down in this
style so graceless and ugly"
and of course I agree to that larger
point and it is an honorable one and
I guess even your characterization of
Lieberman is ,for discourse from the left
(or maybe in a similar case from the right),
mild or in any case is secondary.
forgive my haste...
just it seems to me ,I am open to correction
but,that this is a good and honorable man
so I was defensive.
Re: umm rereading yours
I have to say that there was nothing in the film that suggested Lieberman is (to use shorthand) a bad man. The focus was on his opponents- and they did not appear in a flattering light.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
People have no taste.....
no subject
In what machine is he a happy little cog? To what interests, both foreign and domestic, has he sold his constitutional duty? The answers to these questions, I think, rob Lieberman of any deserved sympathy.
Here in the States, we don't have a democracy - thank Goddess. What we have are the decaying remains of a once promising republic and in recent years men like Lieberman have done much to pry up what little remains of its foundations. Had that stary-eyed mob come after Holy Joe with real "torches and pitchforks", I trust my humanity would have objected to their stringing him up from a lamppost on Pennsylvania Ave. But in what scales does one weigh the travesty that is the "Great War On Terror", which the man has promoted and cheered at every turn, against the loss of one unctuous shill like Lieberman?
no subject
But I'm with you on the "War on Terror". I think it's a Big Lie- in the shadow of which great crimes have been committed. And I don't see how intelligent men and women with access to the unspun evidence could ever have believed that the case for invading Iraq was valid.
no subject
There's more tub thumping and preening over his past calls for military action in the rest of his speech, which you may read for yourself, here:
Senator Joe Lieberman Floor Statement on Iraq
When it comes right down to it, Lieberman worked as hard as anyone in Washington, Republican or Democrat, to bind the need for revenge for the terrorist attacks of 2001 to his long-standing desire to eliminate Saddam Hussein.
no subject
Thanks for sending me this. It tells me all we really need to know about the guy.
no subject
And thanks for tolerating my little tirade so graciously. For all the good it does, at least it feels good to vent a bit, sometimes.
no subject
no subject
you can't possibly be referring to ned lamont? he had a lot of things going for him. namely, he actually supported things like abortion rights and women's rights and he opposed the war. you know, things an actual democrat would do. the reason lieberman lost the primary is because he votes like a republican. he didn't always, but he's become extremely conservative and by the time of the election was really a democrat in name only. that's why people hated him.
"this brutish, young man- who wore his hat the wrong way round and never took it off, not even in church"
(again, assuming you're referring to ned lamont)if you care more about how and where he wears his hat than you do about the policies he stands for-- well, for one thing, you're getting old, and two, that strikes me as being just as silly as supporting him because he's "rich and not joe lieberman".
it was graceless of lieberman to run as an independent after he lost the primary. rather than accepting defeat, he risked the possibility of helping the republican in the election and costing the democrats a senate seat at a time when they needed every possible seat to try and get a majority. and now he's the swing vote in the senate, which galls me to no end. the democrats need him in order have a majority, but now that he's an "independent" he's using the possibility that he could side with the republicans to lord it over them. the only things lieberman stands for anymore are himself and israel (which i don't believe is actually being made safer by the policies that lieberman supports; far from it)
i usually enjoy your characterizations of politics, and as much as i agree with you about the blogosphere, i think you have this very mischaracterized.
no subject
no subject
The guy in the hat was someone else entirely- an ex-marine who'd appointed himself co-ordinator of the blogging campaign.
If I'd had a vote in that election I would certainly have voted Lamont. I'd have voted for a chimp if he was pro-abortion and against the war.
no subject
Lieberman is sure sounding like a Republican to me.
no subject